Add to that, you had the option for smaller teams to buy year old chassis from the top teams which would add some smaller teams to the fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
Printable View
Add to that, you had the option for smaller teams to buy year old chassis from the top teams which would add some smaller teams to the fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
They have that option now, but they are more likely beat down several year old versions of the same chassis. Ask some of the ex ccws teams what they thought of some of the old eQuipment they got.
When I said frustrating, I meant the fact that everyone keeps talking about needing a chassis designthat does A, b, and C, and allows x,y,and z. Those chassis and engine designs already exist, just build NEW ones! No re-invention of the wheel is necessary.
He'll, the dags and chassis engineers probably still have their data and set up sheets!
Taking 93 Lolas and putting them on the track will last ooohh...about a year and we will be heading right back where we are. The teams will improve the cars but make them more aero dependent. I don't want to see the series mandating progress either.
I vote for radically removing the aero off the cars. Aero creates wake turbulence and aero means aero push. Make a car rely on mechanical grip and you put racing back in the hands of the men driving the cars ( and women ). They have to brake for more corners, which increases passing opportunities and less aero means more car control rewarding skilled wheelmen.
Will it be slower? Yup. Will it be more dangerous? Maybe a few more crashes but not necessarily more dangerous because safety isn't dependent on wings, it is dependent on cockpit design and building that capsule around the driver. That we must never stop working on.
Giving us 93 Lolas wont work because the safety isn't there compared to today's car and the teams will go right back down the road of making these cars as undrivable as the current car.
First off, 93-95 Lolas have a lot in common aero wise with 1997-2003 IndyCars.
Here is a good discussion of many issues, a bit old and lots (to say the least) has changed but the fundamentals are the same.
http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/000801AeroProposal.htm
rh
They produced good racing every where they went which is what I want to see a return to.
So should race cars accelerate, brake, maybe even skid with different cars having different speeds and advantages on different parts of the racecourse and use different strategies and setups? The conventional wisdom has been fans want to see cars all going at the same speed in close pack racing.
You guys have a lot of good ideas on technical changes to make that change. The problem is, I don't think the fundamental obstacle is technical. It is a philosophical choice of what the racing is supposed to look like. The current rules and car are designed to work one way and I don't have your faith that whoever is running the IRL is going to actually reverse this philosophical position - even with a new car or new manufacturer involvement.
CCWS, it is complicated by the success of NASCAR. It is pack racing in a sense and a lot of people think the OW version of that works. I think to some fans it might, but I think us OW fans are looking for something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWS77
My point is that many seem to think certain technical changes or even manufacturer involvement solves this. That won't make a difference if the overarching philosophy of those making the rules hasn't changed
CCWS, IndyCars obviously brake and accelerate on Road Courses, On Super Speedways no one has since the early 80s.
On miles ChampCars were flat in the 90s and when they took away the downforce it was a disaster, not to say they couldn't have worked it out, but they didn't.
The DP01 was faster at high speed tracks because you did not have to lift in many sections that you had to lift in the Lola. At common tracks the Dallara has to brake and slow then accelerate more than the DP01 because it has lower specific downforce.
So why does this seem to be such a sudden new thing when it has been around during the "golden years"?
http://i25.tinypic.com/2jblam8.jpg
Note how the faster car with better grip doesn't lift. And yet many praise the higher downforce cars as better, very confusing. The bottom trace is the throttle trace on the loweer downforce car thru a high speed sweeper. Notice the top trace is flat.
rh
I was not trying to claim this trend was "new" nor I am disputing which technical changes might result in better racing. The idea of managed, regulated or designed outcomes is the primary reason I have not been a big motorsports fan for alot of my lifetime. I became a bigger fan when I sensed a trend away from that and found some racing series which I could follow which were not like that. Perhaps that was an illusion because as far as I can tell, that movement or sentiment has been killed and thus my interest in racing is waning.
This thread seems based on the idea that some technical changes can fix that broken philosophy of managed outcomes. I do not see it. Even if the technical change has the desired effect, that is nothing but a bandaid on the issue which can be reversed with some backdoor rule that probably wont even be published for fans. Furthermore, fans constantly insisting that what is really wrong is lack of variation on the starting grid will only serve to make those who constantly work to control the outcome interfere in the rules even MORE. More disparity at the start is not the solution to defeat the idea of a managed outcome, they will just work twice as hard or twice as secretly to achieve it (GrandAm?!)